Title:Six Degrees Could Change the World Director: Ron Bowman Release year:2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of the film is global warming. The film tried to show what happens in future, if the global average temperature rises in each degree up to 6 degrees. Global warming is related to climate change. One of the concerns was, if 6 degree colder could result in ice age, then 6 degrees hotter could create some serious consequences. This film was very good at showing the after affects of the global warming. It said, this planet could be unrecognizable when the gleasure will melt, forest will turn to desert, cities will flood, and colder places will be warmer and more productive. The film also touches on the cycle of global warming and the reasons for increase in carbon die oxide gas. The film mentioned, “Warmer it gets, faster it get warmer”. Increase temperature causes ice melt, and the melting ice increase temperature. Increased temperature causes drought, draught cause tree loss, and tree loss cause more draught that will help to raise the temperature more. All the products we use have carbon footprint. Burning of coal, oil, and natural gas will increase the CO2 emission. As the mixture of water vapor, CO2, N2O, and O3 rises, the heat will trap more and the temperature will be increased. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The film mentioned many sustainability problems. They are global warming, climate change, carbon footprint of every product, draught could result in Bush fire, could lead to deforestation, rivers are drying out, flood cause by gleasure melt, super storm like hurricane caused by warming of the ocean, and sled dogs are abandoned because of ice melting. Beside these problems, the film mentions specific problems to certain part of the world when the temperature rises certain degree. One-degree of warming could turn many of the US land to desert. Two-degree temperature rise could change the ocean life close to east coast of Australia. Carbon sink are making the ocean water acidic. Therefore, large section of the reefs underneath the ocean will die which will cause the extinction of many species that live around the reefs. Three-degree temperature change will cause Europe to have more heat weave. These problems also cause social and economical problems. Higher temperature change affects are harder to predict but it will be something that living in earth will be miserable. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? There are many compelling part in this film. I have learned a lot. I did not know that in extensive heat, plants will retain oxygen and omit CO2. I always thought global warming would mostly affect the poor and coastal countries. I had no idea that it could affect USA harder too. In western USA, thin layer of soil is covering the sand underneath it. One-degree higher temperature could turn the farmland to desert. Northern Nebraska is already facing drought. Because of less water, grasses do not last long. Therefore, farmers are having hard time. On the other side England, Canada and other northern countries will prosperous. Because of warmer climate, they will grow more. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? Beginning of the film was very shocking, but as it was talking about higher temperature change, the effects were similar. The film mentioned some solutions to the global warming, but they didn’t mentioned effective solutions that a normal individual can take. Solution like the person who carries his home with him and always moves, is not possible for everybody. The film also used same image for different temperature change. This also caused the film become monotonous later on. The person in the film, who build a house, which produce energy more than the house needs. He uses less energy than a bulb. I am very sure he does not have a family. What audiences does the film best address? Why? I think everybody could watch this film, but for elementary school students some of the facts will be harder to understand. All the other groups of people will learn a lot from it. This film did not use many statistics and data, which makes the film less boring and easily understood to the people without specific knowledge. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? In the limited time, the film touched many problems. Besides the problems, they needed to suggest different solutions too. It did not say what we should do. The film should use average person as an example, where everybody can follow instead of showing a lifestyle, which most of the people cannot live. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. The film was not very good at describing the solutions. It mentioned wind power could not solve the problem of burning fossil fuel; we cannot produce billions of mirrors, which could reflect the sun light. Global warming is such a huge problem, that actions needed to be taken from the individual level to the broader level. Instead of thinking about only present, people should think about the future too. To reduce carbon emission, cities could have better transport system that each individual do not need to drive his own vehicle. Instead of deforestation and coal mining, we should convert the energies in other ways, like wind, solar, water energies to electric energy. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
I do not know about bleaching effects and the film did not talk a lot about it. Therefore, I wanted to know more about bleaching effect. Coral bleaching is the whitening of corals. Bleaching occurs when the coral's ability to supply the zooxanthellae, (protozoa) with nutrients for photosynthesis (carbon dioxide, ammonium) affected by environmental reasons. It is one kind of disease for corals and it increasesz as the seawater temperature increases.
Director: Ron Bowman
Release year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is global warming. The film tried to show what happens in future, if the global average temperature rises in each degree up to 6 degrees. Global warming is related to climate change. One of the concerns was, if 6 degree colder could result in ice age, then 6 degrees hotter could create some serious consequences. This film was very good at showing the after affects of the global warming. It said, this planet could be unrecognizable when the gleasure will melt, forest will turn to desert, cities will flood, and colder places will be warmer and more productive. The film also touches on the cycle of global warming and the reasons for increase in carbon die oxide gas. The film mentioned, “Warmer it gets, faster it get warmer”. Increase temperature causes ice melt, and the melting ice increase temperature. Increased temperature causes drought, draught cause tree loss, and tree loss cause more draught that will help to raise the temperature more. All the products we use have carbon footprint. Burning of coal, oil, and natural gas will increase the CO2 emission. As the mixture of water vapor, CO2, N2O, and O3 rises, the heat will trap more and the temperature will be increased.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film mentioned many sustainability problems. They are global warming, climate change, carbon footprint of every product, draught could result in Bush fire, could lead to deforestation, rivers are drying out, flood cause by gleasure melt, super storm like hurricane caused by warming of the ocean, and sled dogs are abandoned because of ice melting. Beside these problems, the film mentions specific problems to certain part of the world when the temperature rises certain degree. One-degree of warming could turn many of the US land to desert. Two-degree temperature rise could change the ocean life close to east coast of Australia. Carbon sink are making the ocean water acidic. Therefore, large section of the reefs underneath the ocean will die which will cause the extinction of many species that live around the reefs. Three-degree temperature change will cause Europe to have more heat weave. These problems also cause social and economical problems. Higher temperature change affects are harder to predict but it will be something that living in earth will be miserable.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
There are many compelling part in this film. I have learned a lot. I did not know that in extensive heat, plants will retain oxygen and omit CO2. I always thought global warming would mostly affect the poor and coastal countries. I had no idea that it could affect USA harder too. In western USA, thin layer of soil is covering the sand underneath it. One-degree higher temperature could turn the farmland to desert. Northern Nebraska is already facing drought. Because of less water, grasses do not last long. Therefore, farmers are having hard time. On the other side England, Canada and other northern countries will prosperous. Because of warmer climate, they will grow more.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Beginning of the film was very shocking, but as it was talking about higher temperature change, the effects were similar. The film mentioned some solutions to the global warming, but they didn’t mentioned effective solutions that a normal individual can take. Solution like the person who carries his home with him and always moves, is not possible for everybody. The film also used same image for different temperature change. This also caused the film become monotonous later on. The person in the film, who build a house, which produce energy more than the house needs. He uses less energy than a bulb. I am very sure he does not have a family.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think everybody could watch this film, but for elementary school students some of the facts will be harder to understand. All the other groups of people will learn a lot from it. This film did not use many statistics and data, which makes the film less boring and easily understood to the people without specific knowledge.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
In the limited time, the film touched many problems. Besides the problems, they needed to suggest different solutions too. It did not say what we should do. The film should use average person as an example, where everybody can follow instead of showing a lifestyle, which most of the people cannot live.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film was not very good at describing the solutions. It mentioned wind power could not solve the problem of burning fossil fuel; we cannot produce billions of mirrors, which could reflect the sun light. Global warming is such a huge problem, that actions needed to be taken from the individual level to the broader level. Instead of thinking about only present, people should think about the future too. To reduce carbon emission, cities could have better transport system that each individual do not need to drive his own vehicle. Instead of deforestation and coal mining, we should convert the energies in other ways, like wind, solar, water energies to electric energy.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
I do not know about bleaching effects and the film did not talk a lot about it. Therefore, I wanted to know more about bleaching effect. Coral bleaching is the whitening of corals. Bleaching occurs when the coral's ability to supply the zooxanthellae, (protozoa) with nutrients for photosynthesis (carbon dioxide, ammonium) affected by environmental reasons. It is one kind of disease for corals and it increasesz as the seawater temperature increases.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12071977